Call for Questions! Scripture and Canon in the Second Temple Period

As I noted in my last podcast episode, my next episode will be a bit of a departure from the standard format. I am going to discuss the nature of Scripture and “canon” in the Second Temple period.

For this I need your help! Because I’ve been working on these issues for so long, there are many points I take for granted. I don’t know what you are wondering about and I can’t know your questions until you ask them!

So please comment on this post with your questions about how the Bible was read and understood in this period, what made something a Biblical “book,” or any other question you might have. If you post your question here by the end of the day next Monday (and probably even by Tuesday morning), I should be able to address it in the Thursday podcast.

Note: if you have already posted your question on the previous episode page, you don’t need to repost. 🙂

16 Responses to "Call for Questions! Scripture and Canon in the Second Temple Period"

How do you interpret “wicked ones” Are there a ‘people’ that will never be right in the eyes of Yehovah? because of Gen. 6:2? In the English translation sometimes the words ‘evil’ and ‘wicked’ are used interchangeable, but there seems to be a wicked people that Yehovah judges as wicked to the point He cuts them off without a chance for repentance, such as in Gen. 38:7.
Thanks for your consideration.
I have listened to all the pod casts you have posted thus far so if I have missed the answer to this question, I apologize and ask you to send me back to that pod cast. Thanks…

Question 1: I have heard it said from another scholar, I believe, that the Sadducees kept the “official” copy of the Jewish canon at the temple and made faithful copies. However, those copies never really made it out to the synagogues who relied on less faithful copies of the canon which were never checked again the Temple copy and so mistakes and misreading crept in. Could you comment on this.

Question 2: In your conversation with Nehemia Gordon about your book, you stated that the gospels present demonic possession very different from other 2nd Temple works that are extent. (sorry, if I remember incorrectly) Could you comment on where this novelty could have come from or why you think they are so different.

Related to Jim Gorman’s Question 1 above, I have been wondering for some time about the canonization of the Old Testament. It seems the general understanding is that factual consistency examined by Jewish scholars and faithful tradition lead to what we consider the canon today. But naturally, there are some books that were excluded or perhaps not even heard of for consideration. How was the canon developed from the time of Moses and dispersed among the people uniformly?

The question isn’t so much that of authorship as much as it is “how do we know this compilation is complete and correct?” I understand the canon was closed at some time (for some reason); but, especially with regard to completeness, doesn’t it stand to reason it could continue to be appended progressively by the writings of prophets through the ages? Certainly nothing adding to or conflicting with the Law, but appending to the canon as the prophets of ancient times did. Were the Jewish leaders right to close the canon?

Faith in the Bible is really the bedrock of so many faiths and understanding the founding premise would lend much more credence to the canon as it stands today. Pardon my naievete and thank you for providing this opportunity.

Hi Alberto,
I think you mean that they were seekers after “smooth things” דורשי חלקות. The generally accepted explanation is that this is a reference to the Pharisees, whose interpretation of Torah law was considered far too permissive by the Qumran sect. Hence, the Pharisees (according to those at Qumran) interpreted the Torah in ways that made it “smoother” for themselves rather than choosing the stricter interpretation espoused by the Qumran Community. Qumran law was closer to what we know of Sadducee/Zadokite halakha.

That’s a harder question to answer than you expect. I’m a bit biased, but I would actually recommend looking at the translation and commentary found in Outside the Bible together with my intro. You should be able to find it at your local library and then copy the section on Enoch (it’s in volume 2, starting page 1359). If you do, please be sure to read the commentary together with the translation. Because of the “rules” of the edition, I had to use one translation, and I used Michael Knibb’s translation of the Ethiopic. When the Greek reading is preferable, I note it in the commentary.

If you are looking for an affordable translation (without commentary), a good one is the Hermeneia translation from Fortress Press, done by two leading scholars on Enoch. This translation is based on what is called an eclectic edition, and I do not always agree with the choices that were made regarding reconstructing certain words, but it is affordable, easy to read, and based on real scholarship.